Real Christian Persecution
My last post was about spanking, the possible outlawing of it and how that might impact many Christian parents. Without detracting from the seriousness of that threat, it's worth keeping things in perspective with this reminder of how governing authorities sometimes treat Christians. Here are excerpts from correspondence circa 112 AD between Pliny the Younger, governor of Pontus in Asia Minor, and the Roman Emperor Trajan:
Pliny to Trajan: "It is my custom, lord emperor, to refer to you all questions where I am in doubt. . . . this is the course I have taken with those who are accused before me as Christians. I asked them whether they were Christians and if they confess I asked them a second and third time with threats of punishment. If they kept to it, I ordered them for execution; for I held no question that whatever if was they admitted in any case obstinacy and unbending perversity deserved to be punished."
Trajan to Pliny: "You have adopted the proper course, my dear Secundus, in your examination of the cases of those who are accused to you as Christians, for indeed nothing can be laid down as a general ruling . . . . they are not to be sought out: but if they are accused and convicted, they must be punished -- yet on this condition, that whoever declares himself to be a Christian . . . shall obtain pardon on his repentance however suspicious his past conduct may be."
So many fascinating angles here. First, the whole "don't ask, don't tell" approach; as if Christians were the homosexuals of the Roman Empire. Then there's the curious use of "repentance", a word we normally associate with . . . a commitment TO Christianity, not apostasy. Plenty of interesting legal procedural questions, too. But of course, foremost is the realization that innocent men, women and children were slaughtered for the "obstinat[e] and unbending[ly] pervers[e]" offense of believing their sins were forgiven and refusing to worship a man as a god.
In one sense, the Roman rulers were wise to be suspicious; in the long run, of course, Christianity DID conquer the empire, though not through rebellion or disorder. But that's another story. Violent persecution has continued, though, in different parts of the world for pretty much the entire 1900 years since this exchange between Pliny and Trajan.
posted by Under The Mountain | 4:52 PM
3 Comments:
Wait, I thought the fall of the roman empire was due to a mix of invading Bavarian tribes, who settled the Northern part of the empire and the Moores, who conquered the South.
Well, many historians do credit tension between the decline in the morals and values of the Romans and the rise of Christianity as a potential cause of the fall of the Roman empire. Don't you think those invaders were just able to scoop up the leftover bits of an imploded empire? I do.
There are a lot of reasons for the fall of the Roman empire. That's how folks have been able to write about it in three and four volumes.
From what I've read (and it's been a long time since I read anything) other causes were urban decay, declining public health and inflation.
That should scare us.
That is so much more interesting to me, JP, in light of the reading I've been doing in the Book of Daniel. Especially, the interpretation of the first prophecy (about the image of gold, silver, bronze, iron and clay). I feel that the US has to fit in there somewhere. Don't know where, though.
So, yeah. I also marvel at how Christianity tends to thrive under persecution.
Su
A clarification for mud puppy: by Christians conquering the empire, I was referring to the conversion of Constantine in 312 AD. That was the middle (OK, maybe the last third) of the empire period. The empire was in a state of decay to some extent by then, perhaps, but the big fall is typically dated around 476, when Odoacer deposed the last emperor ruling from Rome. At least that's when Edward Gibbon dated it. He was THE big historian to blame Chrisianity for causing the empire's downfall, essentially by making the formerly tough Romans soft. Susan, I don't really buy that; it seems more likely to me that the empire was decaying already and there wasn't time for Christianity to stop the downfall. But who can say?
So, mud puppy is right in my view, but I didn't mean to say in my post that Christianity caused the FALL of the Roman empire; I meant that it CONQUERED the empire and ruled it as its own for well over a century. (I know there are questions about Constantine's conversion, about whether Christianity's embrace by officialdom was really good for the church or not, and about all kinds of other stuff; I'm just generalizing here.)
By the way, there's a great exhibit right now at the Fernbank Museum in Atlanta showcasing artifacts from the empire period. Terrific sculpture, coins, jewelry, etc. Even three recently discovered busts of emperors in unbelievably fine condition.
Post a Comment
<< Home